Badly directed.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Mad Max
somethingtofear — 11 years ago(August 25, 2014 02:47 PM)
Now i saw it first time and because of this i am gonna criticise it without nostalghia.That means i am not giving extra credit for film's mistakes.
The score is totally mistake for this film this is a revenge film but score is from 80's cheesey dramas.And score is too loud, some of the scenes i couldnt heard the dialouges.
Actions scenes are not good enough.Most of them cut when the event happens.For example when somebody is goona die or crush the car it cuts and we see a huge eyeballs every single time.Stunt also terrible.
Script could have been improved.Max's revenge was totaly rushed and give nothing.It was like a trailer.
Acting medicore.
I know t's filmed in 1979 but thats not an excuse for all of this, there are some pretty good action movies still holding up today.
People say second one is best, i am gonna see that but this one couldn't created a extitement to that.
After watching the all films including the new one, i must say that i respect George Miller because Road Warrior and Fury Road are superb action films. I hope he continues to direct the franchise. -
Marjeez — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 12:41 PM)
This is how films were in the 70s dumbdumb. No it wasn't badly directed. In fact it was brilliantly directed, which is why it's considered a classic today.
~RANKING 2015 FILMS~
www.imdb.com/list/ls073654147/
Last seen: It Follows (7/10) -
brianwhite5 — 10 years ago(March 25, 2016 12:43 PM)
Your right, I understood everything you said and I tend to agree with your criticisms.
The film is very quirky and highly watchable, but it is a bit sloppy when it comes to production values. Perhaps it's been deliberately made that way. I agree with the current score of 7/10. The sequel was much better though and easily 9/10. -
yusef-ghanima — 11 years ago(October 06, 2014 01:40 AM)
it wasn't bad but you are occupied with presumptions. the movie is not pure action, it has a poetic side. the second one is not better, but could be for you since all you care about is action. the third one was a master piece, but it wasn't suppose to be a mad max in the first place.
-
somethingtofear — 11 years ago(October 06, 2014 03:16 PM)
i have watched the second one after i saw the first one.For me it is better in every way.Not just action, i do rather great story or cinematography more than action.But second one does all of this better and i really liked the road warrior.I am not sure about the first one's poetic part because it looked to me pretty simple revenge story (although we all know revenge part rushed).
-
yusef-ghanima — 11 years ago(October 08, 2014 05:15 AM)
the death of the night rider with prophetic face before he crash, the saw chance given in the end was the starting point for the saw movies, i didn't find it great, but it is much better than you think.
-
overmatik — 10 years ago(December 19, 2015 12:47 AM)
This film is a textbook on how to shoot an action movie. The stunts are nothing short of amazing and the action is above the norm for action movies. In any possible way a superior movie to the so acclaimed Fury Road.
-
gollumsmeagolrocks — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 01:22 PM)
I don't think the movie is bad, but it's not a masterpiece. Even George Miller has admitted this on occasion. I don't think that for the same reasons stated above. The only problem I have with the movie is this.
The movie builds up the revenge and Max going crazy. But it should have happened earlier in the movie. It was no longer the main plot, which is a shame because it was rather brilliantly done, but more of a concluding subplot. All the buildup of his character earlier and his wife and his friend being murdered, and the bikers wrecking everything is fine! It can be in the film! I even think it should! But it shouldn't have lasted an entire hour and 15 mintues before he goes mad. I would've had all that stuff take 35-45 minutes, then Max would go mad for THE REST OF THE MOVIE which would be longer than a measly 15 minutes. For such a thematic, important plot point, in the actual film it lasts so little of the time. I think it should have really been a one man war against the biker dudes as opposed to a last stand. Because if it was a destructive personal war against them, lasting a longer portion of the movie, it would have really nailed the idea he was going as bad as them.
~NW~ -
Everardo_G — 11 years ago(October 13, 2014 12:16 AM)
You've got to be effing kidding me with this post the original Mad Max is a classic masterpiece!!! You really don't sound like you know how to judge movies. The cinematography in this movie was nothing but beautiful and for all they did on such a cheap budget beautiful stunt work and all. Mad Max was also responsible for setting off the post apocalyptic movie genre. And god how can you even say that about the score it sounds so similar to the style of a classic western soundtrack and fits so beautifully with the movie's action and suspense it's easily one of the best scores ever created. Jesus that was such a terrible read.
-
somethingtofear — 11 years ago(October 13, 2014 03:00 AM)
this movie is not a setting up for a post apocalyptic genre.first film has nothing to do with it.it was the secnond film did that which was a better film in every way.i cannot give more credit for just because second film has a setting up for the genre.
again first and second films are completely different.you do not need to watch the first film. if i knew that i wouldnt torture myself with first movie because it is a poorly directed piece of garbage which has a porn soundtrack. -
Elder_Yautija — 11 years ago(December 11, 2014 03:27 AM)
I don't agree with this one thing you said:
"I know t's filmed in 1979 but thats not an excuse for all of this, there are some pretty good action movies still holding up today."
I think that for the year it was released and for it's really tight budget this film it's a pretty damn good action/revenge film.
And I also think that most of the acting is above average, especially for today's standards.
The movie has its flaws, indeed, but I don't think these flaws make it half as bad as you see it. I would recommend you watch it again and put it in the context it belongs to. It will probably grow on you like it did with many other younger viewers. -
vojkan087 — 11 years ago(December 11, 2014 11:32 PM)
But the fact Mad Max is low budget Australian 1979 movie does make an excuse for most of those things you have there.
Score can't be from 80 cheesy dramas, since movie is 79.
I disagree stunt was terrible,Goose's crash was good enough, two motorcycles crash on a bridge with one being hit in the head by the sliding bike wastoo real.
The movie wasn't affraid of some radical approaches, like a brutal murder of a mother holding a child. You can't see that these days.
Cinematography and the whole desperate, chaotic tone to the entire movie was magnificient. You don't need instagram filters for a post apocalyptic feel to it.
Not many movies since were that tense, without the usual Hollywood predictability or conveniences, or the 2mil dollars huge scenes that suppose to showhow CG evolved?!
Mad Max is ultimate example of substance over form.
And the fact it all happened in 1979. makes this a classic.